Slashdot Mirror
Do Not Call Registry Set to Become Permanent
coondoggie passed us a NetworkWorld article about an initiative by the Senate to transform the Do Not Call list into a permanent institution. Originally individuals on the list were to have their place on the list revoked; up to a third of the people who signed up might have fallen off the list by the Autumn without renewing legislation. A move by the Senate this past Wednesday will permanently prevent salesmen from calling those who have registered for the list. "Aside from what telemarketing junk the bill does prevent, experts note what may also be a big deal is a provision that is NOT in this bill and that is protection for those other annoying time wasters: political robo calls."
My congresscritters are finally doing something I approve of!
I can just hang up on a phone call. I find junk mail to be far more annoying & damaging to the environment.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Don't think so? How many prosecutions have there been under the law in the last year?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
How about no robo-calls PERIOD?
Do you know they leave messags on your answering machine now?
I was sitting here, minding my own business.. phone rings, 1-800 number..no way i'm picking that up.
So my machine gets it, to my horrow i suddenly hear a text-book RADIO AD blaring through my answeing machine!
HI THIS IS GOTTSCHALKS BLQAGH BLAH BLAH in my own #($&*%& house, an ad! NO TV, NO RADIO!
I immediately threw my empty beer bottle at the blast machine, I'm getting answering service through the phone company now!
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Been awhile since I've heard that word. I forget, is it the transition from summer to fall or just a synonym for fall? Either way, I hope the list does become permanent and remain outraged that the politicians still give themselves the exemption.
Demented But Determined.
I'm suprised they had the opportunity to FIT this in between steroids in baseball and cheating in the NFL. Wow. I'm still going to try to vote every one of them out, but when I do it, I imagine I might do it with a little less malice.
Is that telemarketers outside its jurisdiction have no obligation to honour it, but they can access it and use it to seed their auto dialers.
Why not simply require telcos to ask their customers whether or not they want to be on an opt in list when setting up a new account?
For the past half year, I've been getting calls "For any credit card holder with outstanding balances, press 9 for more information." So once I pressed 9 to tell the person they were breaking the law by calling me. The lady on the other end denied that their activities were illegal because I agreed to the call by pressing 9. Seems like circular logic to me, but they keep calling.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Caller ID along with an answering machine is a great combination. My home phone/answering machin also lets me set up custom ring tones for numbers in its address list. If a family member of friend calls I hear one type of ring so I always answer it. If the Caller ID says something like "blocked" or "unknown" or shows a phone number like 000-000-0000 then I just let my answering machine pick it up. It sure saves me a lot of hassle.
In this amazing future there is a thing called Caller ID. I use it to see who is calling me before I answer the phone. When is says 'unavailable' or 'anonymous' I just ignore it. Sure I waste precious seconds looking to see the name, but I think I can handle it.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
How about we have a real solution and make it illegal to solicit people at all. Why should I have to sign up for a special list so that someone I don't know can call me on a service I pay for about something I care nothing about. And while we are at it, include the charity folks in there, if I want to donate, I'll find you.
Now what we need is Do Not Mail Registry (anybody knows a good reason why this doesn't exist already?) and Do Not Email Registry (a bit harder to enforce :)
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I answer the phone and tell them "yes, just hold on a second". Then I leave the phone on the table, wondering how long will it take them to hang up this time.
What happens to the status of the number when someone discontinues usage of the telephone number, say by moving or canceling your service and moving to VoIP? IF the number is then at some point reassigned to another person, does that number remain on the Do-Not-Call list? If it does, is that legitimate, as an individual can only vouch for their own phone numbers, and not that of a third-party?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
How about people who have their number on the list, but then, GASP, move, and their number changes. That number is now on the list forever, despite its owner changing, no?
Ok, so once this becomes permanant, hopefully they just use a dumb form to add a number to the list.. in which case... I'll give a bag of cookies to whoever writes the first perlscript to add every single number in existance to the database. I mean, thats only what, 000-0000 to 999-9999?
coondoggie writes in with a networkworld article! How about that!
Now we need to do something about the telemarketing firms calling "on behalf" of non-profit organizations. This is still legal under the law (it seemed like a good idea: who doesn't love non-profits?), but it's being abused. The telemarketing companies keep an extraordinary fraction of the donations (over 50%, from what a local newspaper investigation found) so little of your money goes to the organization you're trying to help.
One obvious solution is to only allow the non-profit exemption if more than, say, 90% of the donation goes right to the actual non-profit. That'll probably shut up the telemarketers because profit would no longer cover costs.
The occasional person polling me for my opinions doesn't bother me at all. It's simple enough to hang up if I don't want to bother. But in the days before the Do Not Call List, I'd hardly ever bothered answering my phone if it got bad.
Junk mail is far worse, IMO. You still have to sort through it to make sure you're not throwing anything important out. It usually just ends up turning my house into a mess because I don't have the time to deal with it all. At the very least, they could put those newspaper adverts in a bag or something. It's too easy to get that crap mixed in with real mail. I don't want anything that doesn't have my name on it (resident mailings), nor do I want credit card offers that can fuck me up if I don't dispose of them properly. I wish I could direct a private company to deliver my mail that won't having a problem stripping this stuff out for me.
That's not a Problem, that's a feature. Since that's the way it should be already. I'd be happy to get a number already on the DNC list. If I wanted to get removed I could do that. Not what I would call a deal breaker.
They've had my dollar a few years now, and my mailbox hasn't seen any difference.
Just this morning I was pondering an amazing coupon for two $0.79 Taco Bell tacos for only $1.59. Or ten for $7.99!
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
The new telemarketers get around the do not call list by claiming they are taking surveys for products. I have been getting more and more calls for surveys lately for this or that product. I ask to be taken off the call list but they just say they are not telemarketers and ignore the request.
Businesses like to make themselves sound so privacy sensitive and friendly by offering an "opt-out" option. This is bullshit. Opt-out should be the default. Unless you have a bonafide business relationship with an organization (not their affiliates, partners, etc.), you should have to OPT-IN to be subject to direct mail, email, phone, and fax solicitations.
... maybe a little late to be opting out of this eh?) or at risk of physical harm.
Some don't even offer that - among the most egregious collectors and wholesalers of private, personal data is ChoicePoint. Check out this "Opt-Out" page: http://www.privacyatchoicepoint.com/optout_ext_pfg.html
See the "Reason for your request" dropdown? (Note that you have to choose a state to see any options here.). Notice that there is no "It's none of your fvcking business" choice available. You typically have to be a public elected official or law enforcement (they take care of their own of course), victim of identity theft (err
And it's not as simple as simply making that statement - you have to actually upload supporting documentation for your claim.
... the DNC included charities, too. My wife doesn't like confrontations, doesn't like saying no, and can't bring herself to just say "Not interested" and hang up. We've also got a lot going on, what with our two-pound-six-ounce prematurely-born baby and all, so a lot of times the easiest way for her to get rid of them is to just say 'Yes.' In particular, the Florida Highway Patrol calls a lot. Actually, it's not really the FHP--any group that wants to collect money on their behalf can do so, so even if you ask them not to call, another group will call later. And it's just a waste--90% of the money they collect goes to overhead. Very little gets to whatever it's actually being collected for. (According to an actual state trooper we asked.)
Oh, and they usually block their caller ID too... scumsucking turds. We wouldn't answer blocked calls at all except her family and some business contacts are in Europe and those numbers sometimes show up as 'unknown' too. It should be an absolute law that no company, organization, charity, or political party should be allowed to call with a blocked caller ID. It's just as bad as forged FROM: headers in spam.
As for robo-calls, I don't mind those so much... I don't get many, and at least they're easy to hang up on. That doesn't mean they should be allowed, though. NO group should be able to waste your time, no matter what they're selling, be it a product or a point of view.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
And that includes the charities that spend 97 percent of the money they fundraise on "executive compensation".
Sigh.
I'm not surprised politicians are exempting themselves from the Do Not Call list in a law they pass, though.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sometimes those calls are Joe Jobs launched by the opposition, so be careful.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I don't know why my opinions are becoming so important lately after this "Do Not Call" list is up. I need a "Do Not Poll" list.
...the odds are about 50/50 that whoever gets your old number will want to be on the list anyway.
For many, many years before the DNC list came out I had the phone company not publish my number in the phone book and information was not allowed to give it out either. However, some telemarketing calls would get through on occasion. My answer to this with my answering machine caller-id enabled phone was Win fax. If a call came in when I wasn't there, no big deal. I could delete the message later. If I was there and saw private, unknown or blocked on the caller-id I would force Win fax to answer. The telemarketer would remove my number from their calling list. My favorite part about this is thinking how the caller felt when my modem blew out their eardrum. SWEET!!!
I still practice this even though my number is on the DNC list.
The thing that bugs me is that the situation seems backwards. It should be an opt-in not opt-out. We shouldn't have to sign up on a list to disallow these types of calls. Instead, it should be automatic and if you want to opt-in to having your dinner interrupted by telemarketer calls then you simply add your name and number to the list.
The downside to an opt-in system is that you would need some form of identity verification process or you would have scumbags adding people to the system without their knowledge.
*sigh* Realizing just how hard it would be to maintain such a system, the current method may be about the best we can do for now. :(
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
I don't care about the political robotic callers. I care about certain charities for government unions that constantly harass people down here in Alabama. Guilt, harassment, insults, and plain old rudeness should not be allowed by organizations that sound like government agencies to the general public. Alabama FOP, Alabama Firefighters, and State Troopers, I'm talking to you.
Get a private mailbox at a place like "the ups store" (formerly mailboxes etc).
You won't get any junk mail unless it is addressed to you by name.
The smarter private mailbox places will also sign for packages and email you that you've got one waiting. Usually they have 24x7 pick up for packages that fit in the over-sized package 'lockers.'
If you move, you can pay for forwarding service that won't share your new address with anyone (unlike the 'free' forwarding service from the usps).
Why pay someone to sort through your mail? I'll happily rifle through it for free!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Grand Unifying Conspiracy Theory prediction of the day:
The Do Not Call List will be used to determine exactly who is at home during dinner time, and instead of a being a do not call list, it will be a guaranteed to call me during supper list.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
Corporate speech can be regulated to some degree under the Firtst Amendment. Political speech has a higher level of scrutiny, so banning robo-calls might not pass SCOTUS muster.
Then again, this Court seems to like to ban political speech, despite the fact that the first amendment that was added to the Constitution was put their chiefly to protect political speech!
Remember people, the First Amendment is their to protect all speech, not just speech you agree with.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The DNC list was intended to be the same thing as those "NO SOLICITING" signs that people put up on their front doors or front gates. Basically, if you were a solicitor and *still* solicited to the residence, you were legally trespassing.
The DNC list is supposed to be the same exact thing, albeit in one government-maintained database, and since the telemarketers cannot see the signs on your door, the DNC list was a place where telemarketers could look and "see" if you forbade soliciting.
However, the non-profits had this crazy idea that their calls weren't annoying since they were asking fr donations. They were solicititing donations and they ARE just as annoying as any other telemarketer (especially since only a fraction of what you donate goes towards the cause beind the donation). Political solicitations are no less irritating, and should NOT be exempt either.
If I want to buy a product, service, or donate, then I will do it ON MY OWN ACCORD. Telemarketing should be the other way around: You call them when you want to buy a product, service, or donation.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
1. Pay to have your number unlisted in the phone book
2. ***This is the biggie** Report your number to every company as (areacode)-999-9999. By every company I mean every company, banks, water works, electric, hospital, etc. To be fair, the company I work for has my number.
I have been asked to verify that my number is indeed (areacode)-999-9999 and I of course told them this is true. What do call center employees in india know about phone numbers in the US anyway.
I'll rely on my political science and law degrees for legal guidance, not some anon coward's. There is some valid constitutional authority on this. - Unassimilatible.
I still wont be happy until Opt-Out becomes the default, just like it should be with any other form of SPAM. Communications like this should all be Opt-In only, and only then if specifically subscribed per list type. All these contracts that say "we do business with you now, so our subsidiaries and 'partners' all get to SPAM you now, unless you go over there and print this form and sign and snail-mail it" are the default now, and they all stink.
Why such a blacklist? Wouldn't a whitelist work better? Of course, not better for telemarketers.
Anyway, telemarketing in this age of information relies on deception to sell. It is akin to wild west snake-oil sellers going from town to town, but instead of having a group of people to comfront, they corner each victim and fast-talk them into whatever they sell. Sure, there may be fantastic products i have not learned about yet, but between that and being molested in my own home it's a clear choice.
Here you can get added to two lists, one for phone marketing and one for postal stuff to indicate you don't want to be contacted. You can also register with the Royal Mail not to receive the junk they sometimes insert too. Any firms who flout this get heavy fines. I believe there are some getouts marketeers can use but for years now I've had no more than 1 or 2 calls per year and maybe a bit of paper based junkmail per month.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The telemarketroiding thing that torques me off today is those political phone spammers who are wardialing 800 numbers. Yes, they're calling all your favorite infomercials with a pitch for one of the presidential candidates. I work at a company that handles a lot of these incoming 800 numbers, and I've blocked dozens of callers for calling hundreds of times with campaign pitches.
I will say, though, that based on the quality of these calls, I doubt it's the candidates' organizations doing this. They sound way, way too amateurish.
The people who send junk faxes behaved for awhile, but now ignore the law.
It's been my experience that the phone solicitors are starting to ignore the donotcall registry too.
Many are also not blocking caller-id now, since many phone companies allow you to automatically block unidentified callers.
The problem in both laws is lack of enforcement by the GOV, and restricted options for individuals.
YES. You are so so so right about that. I am on the same soapbox. There are a ton of call-screening and other actual phone features that ought to be universal, but they don't create revenue streams, so they don't get made.
One thing I'd like is a compromise between turning my phone off at night and leaving it on. I want a mode where a caller gets a message saying, "I'm asleep or busy. If this is an emergency, press 1 to ring me anyway." I should also have the option to whitelist certain people to do this, or maybe just blacklist repeat offenders who wake me up. (After all, it could be someone calling on behalf of a loved one.)
As to your call-routing ideas, there is a service that does that and much more, which I stumbled upon a while back. They're not taking new users right now, but it looks freaking amazing. It has been bought by Google, and I practically have fantasies about an Android phone that integrates this service.
It's called Grand Central. It says it will let you hand out one phone number to everyone, and set rules for who rings to what phone - including "don't ring at all for these people." It also lets you record phone calls, switch phones in the middle of a call, have visual voicemail, personalize your voicemail greeting depending on who is calling, and more. SO SO cool.
I am chomping at the bit for a day when users' needs trump the carriers' desire to wring every cent out of us. I think that day is coming.
These calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters. Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry at StopPoliticalCalls.org. Here is a quote from a member this morning: "I find it very frustrating... I tend to get calls at the WORST time. I have a one year old daughter, and it NEVER fails that the phone will ring when I put her down for a nap or for bed. Also my vote is PRIVATE... so who do you think you are calling with a survey to find out who I am voting for!!! Stop calling me." Regards, Shaun Dakin CEO and Founder http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org/
The concept that corporations have ANY "rights", including free speech, is completely ludicrous.
Well, just because you don't like corporations doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. A corporation is merely a legal business entity created by law, a long time ago, in a representative democracy (or do you only believe in law when it goes the way you want?), to represent the interests of people - you know, the investors. Corporations weren't created to take their rights away because they merely chose a different investment vehicle! Quite the contrary, the whole point was so people can get together and combine and raise capital in a limited liability way. Corporations weren't designed to say, "hey, we have a new way to invest your money, but you lose all of your rights from a sole proprietorship or a partnership." No, the corporate entity was added to further protect investors! Why should someone lose rights merely because they incorporate and get larger and more successful? Simply because you don't like successful businesses? Should we have remained a third-rate power and never grown into this economic powerhouse? Are communist countries really better?
The activist Conservative judges gave corporations some of the same "rights" as people
It wasn't conservative judges, Sparky, that gave Corporations free speech rights. Quite the contrary, the most liberal court in the history of SCOTUS, the Warren Court and the 1970's court in the years thereafter that gave us Roe v Wade and countless other liberal activist decisions, handed down a bunch of decisions that set the corporate free speech rights precedent and more. See:
THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATE SPEECH: MOBIL OIL AND THE LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VOICE OF BIG BUSINESS
The most significant case, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI (1978), in which the Supreme Court held, in Kerr's words, that "speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment did not lose its protection because the source is a corporation," passed by the same Court that gave us the unprecedented liberal activist case Roe v. Wade, was one in which future "conservative" Chief Justice Justice Rehnquist dissented.
through a grave misunderstanding of the term "people" in the Constitution, because apparently Conservatives think corporations are more important than actual living, breathing PEOPLE. You know, the new type of hairless talking monkeys. That kind of people!
You mean the creatures that actually own corporations, the investors? You do know that over 2/3 of publicly held stock is owned by the individual investor, either directly or through investment funds? And as one of those investors, I like my chances better if a big corporation with its huge resources is advocating for me financially, rather than little me, squeaking away, unheard!
I can't believe you have me defending corporations here. I just reported the law, cheesemonkey! Don't shoot the messenger!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you